Search World Bank indicators by keyword to retrieve official data for fact-checking political claims.
Search World Bank indicators by keyword.
Args: query: Search keyword. limit: Maximum number of results to return.
Returns: List of IndicatorResult matching the query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states that it returns a list of IndicatorResult matching the query and implies a read-only search, which is positive. However, it does not disclose matching semantics (exact, substring, case-sensitive), pagination behavior, rate limits, or how to interpret no results. It does not contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is 3 compact sections: one-line summary, args, returns. It is front-loaded, has no fluff, and each sentence contributes essential information. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter search tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a low-complexity tool with only two parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential details needed to invoke it. A short sentence about when to prefer worldbank_get_data or other sibling search tools would make it fully complete, but nothing critical is missing for actual invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only provides names, types, and a default for limit; the description adds functional meaning by explaining query as a search keyword and limit as the maximum number of results. That is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly despite 0% schema description coverage, though more detail such as accepted query syntax would be beneficial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search World Bank indicators by keyword.' It clear distinguishes itself from sibling tools like insee_search_indicators and eurst/s output by making 'World Bank' explicit, and from data-retrieval tools by being a keyword search. The source and action are unambiguous even without naming alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this when you need to find Word Bank indicator metadata by keyword. However, it does not name any alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when an exact indicator code is already known and worldbank_get_data would be more suitable. The usage context is clear but only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.